@kristopaivinen Well, I was just curious why you brought it up to start with. You presented it in reply to my observation that the pitches SOUND random. The key word is "sound", not "random". The pitches no doubt have some ordering method, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an AUDIBLE logic. "Similarities" and "developments" are not the issue, either. Simple issue is, do the pitches form audible, meaningful groups, e.g. chords that have function. If not, they're random.
@kristopaivinen I will apologize and tell you I understand little of what you wrote. I will address "the audibility of the logic seems to depend on familiarity with each piece." Problem here: two things can lead to predictability and therefore involvement in a piece of music - familiarity and logic. Since they both lead to predictability, they can become confused. Listening to something without audible logic over and over until it becomes familiar will result in predictability, but not in logic.
@kristopaivinen Please forgive me, I again cannot understand what you're saying. Perhaps you mistyped. When you say "the logic, if it's there..." - don't you think you should know whether or not it's there? I know it's not and have stated so plainly. Then you say "no two musical figures are exactly alike". How do you know that to be the case? Doesn't the possibility exist otherwise? You speak of "variations" - I am not aware of variations, but I didn't listen all the way.
@kristopaivinen You are missing my point. I contend the pitch choices make no aural sense. Everything you say above seems irrelevant to that simple statement. A monkey's choices of pitches could not sound more devoid of reason. I wonder if I did a quick replacement of 50% of the pitches whether you could hear the difference (I'd skillfully move them only a semitone up or down in most cases.)
@kristopaivinen No need for audible note repetitions nor a "scattering across registers" (curious), since we're talking semitones here. You claim with my alterations you'd "be less able to make any sense of the piece". Please be specific - what "sense" do you mean, and how would that sense be destroyed or damaged by my alterations?
@skarp2010 "You would still increase note repetitions within some 12-note successions in the piece," 1. not necessarily 2 Who cares - note repetitions are inaudible so long as they're not within 2 or three notes, unless, of course, you're listening for them, which is a silly way to listen to music. When you "discover" these "relations", do you do so aurally or in some other way? If the latter, those relations are meaningless.
@kristopaivinen When you say you "react to" repetitions, how do you do so? If I play you a "row" of 11 notes, will you know without counting, somehow mysteriously "sense" it? If I repeat notes 2 at note 11? You are aware, of course, that pitch repetitions occur *all the time* in 12 tone music - they're between 2 or more rows. So how could you tell, when you hear a repetition, whether it is "legal"? BTW "indicates" is not the same as "sounds".
@kristopaivinen Sorry, your "infer" is evasive. I asked you a simple question. Please answer it clearly and honestly. When you say you involuntarily count pitches, do you think that is the way 12-tone music is meant to be heard, sort of like solving a puzzle? Do you have perfect pitch?
@kristopaivinen I'm just not getting this repetition stuff. You can have as many repetitions as you want in 12-tone music so long as they are members of different rows. If played on a piano or any other polyphonic instrument, it is not possible to aurally distinguish if they are "correct" or "illegal". Truthfully, this discussion seems to be going nowhere. Hearing note repetitions in any case is nonsense - in a complex texture, a repetition from 4 seconds ago is not detectable for most.
@kristopaivinen I think we're really not communicating. How you can say these matters have no significance in discovering a so-called wealth of relations is impossible to understand. "These matters" are exactly one thing - can you hear this "wealth" or not? As such, "these matters" have *everything* to do with whether a piece has a "wealth of relations" that is *audible* or is random-*sounding* garbage. Any mode of "discovery" not employing hearing is worthless wrt music, which is a SONIC art.
@kristopaivinen This is getting surreal. Forget "indicates" - it is a worthless verb with the sort of imprecise, "soft" meaning you seem to favor (like "infer" and "imply"). "Aurally indicates" is equally worthless. "Sounds" means something that has the ability to be heard without special, Herculean effort. Is that clear enough? Above I asked you if one can HEAR this "wealth" or not and you didn't answer. Is the word "hear" confusing for you as well? Let's get one thing straight. (continued)
@jaspernatchez@kristopaivinen (cont'd) Tonal music has an extremely complex set of pre-defined structures (chords & scales) that inter-relate in myriad ways, forming relationships over a wide array of time spans: note to note, phrase to phrase, section to section. These structures are greater than the sum of their notes. While they can be analyzed, most often they are heard intuitively by non-musicians. If they weren't, music would be dead because it would have no appeal for the vast majority.
@kristopaivinen Hmm, so, you've heard it 5 times & still have no opinion of its worth. How many times would you need to hear it in order to make a judgment as to whether it's a good piece or not? 10? 25? 50? Can you give me an example of what you might hear after 10 times that you haven't heard after 5? Just so I understand, you say you'd have to be a genius to "respond" to a piece of Babbitt in less than, say, 10 listenings. So you must think it's really profound. What do you mean by "respond"?
@kristopaivinen Evasive reply again. You stated that after 5 listenings, you have "no convictions of its worth". I suspect what is happening is that after an absurd number of repetitions, you begin to be able to predict events, and confuse that with genuine musical expectation. You could do the same with what a monkey wrote. I haven't heard much of Babbitt, but everything I have heard has been absolutely, consistently worthless. He was a charlatan. If I may be blunt, I suspect you're one, too.
@kristopaivinen "Random" means devoid of pattern. "Sounds" means "gives an aural impression of being". Memory plays no part in something sounding random any more than if I hear a mental patient speaking gibberish. Simple fact is that the pitches in much 12-tone music do not arrange into comprehensible patterns analogous to chords, scales, sequence, etc., with FUNCTION. There is no analogue in 12 tone music to the incredibly rich and complex tonal VOCABULARY.
@kristopaivinen The coherence and variation exist in 12 tone music, but NOT AURALLY. I have great ears, and I cannot hear an inversion of a 12 note sequence. Compound that with the row being used VERTICALLY as well, and a child could see that it's not audible. I repeat: elements such as variation or coherence that are not audible are WORTHLESS in a sonic art.
@kristopaivinen Repetition is neither a prerequisite nor a determinant of coherence. While it is true that coherence is a necessary aspect of art, it is not the most important one. There is usually no coherence between the movements of a symphony nor between the first and second themes of a sonata movement. In fact, contrast is a more fundamental aspect of art than coherence. I realize that English probably is not your primary language, but I don't understand your last sentence.
@jaspernatchez Let's make this simple, OK? I have a suggestion. You listen to the Babbitt 20 or 30 more times or whatever it takes to allow you to form an opinion. If you decide it is a good piece after that, tell me precisely why. Use the timings on the youtube video. Tell me "Here I love this harmony", "Here it is very beautiful for x and y reason", "here it is exciting for q and z reason", "here it is very unexpected", etc. I will go to those places and see if I can get it. Fair enough?
@kristopaivinen So I take it you are unwilling to comply with my suggestion, thus unwilling to state precisely why anyone would want to listen to this "music". I'm not surprised.
@kristopaivinen Here's a newsflash for you. Pay close attention: People don't listen to music for "logic". Re tone rows, I couldn't care less about them - I intuitively knew when I first heard of them at 19 that the idea of their use for musical composition is absurd. The sad thing is that it took so long for that use to die out. Arnold was a good salesman. Re Babbitt, anyone who cannot perceive that serializing dynamics, for example, is even more absurd, simply has no clue what music is about.
@kristopaivinen You say "for some reason" although I clearly stated the reason in this discussion. I'll repeat it here. Any means of organizing pitches that is not audible is irrelevant to a sonic art. You say you're concerned with hearing "elements". What are those elements, specifically? What benefit do they give you once you finally hear them? I get the impression that for you, listening to music is a contest - see if you can, via massively repeated listenings, hear patterns. I find that sad
@kristopaivinen As I surmised, that's what music is to you - a puzzle to decipher. Poor guy - you don't have a clue about what you're missing. Anyway, I hope you achieve your end after 20 or so more listenings of this Babbitt, so you can have your "fun - yay" - and, I suppose, a sense of accomplishment or whatever, kinda like what I get from the morning crossword. Good luck!
@jaspernatchez Even if that is what music is to me, it is not all that music is to me. In fact, it is less a puzzle to me than it is a cause of whims, moods, feelings and sentiments, which I cannot live without any more than the average man can live without his pop music. However, I have no clue how specifying/naming these whims/moods/feelings is supposed to help us objectively discuss the value of ANY music - whether modern or traditional - or to measure its value other than just subjectively.
@kristopaivinen Let's review. I asked you to describe for me the "elements" that make music worthwhile, you described to me some "vocabulary" produced by the influence of rows, which is equal to the "sum of relations" of the row/array. You are misusing the word "vocabulary", which is defined as "the body of words used in a particular language". Thus you suggest with your statement that each row has its own language, which is absurd. There is a vocabulary of the tonal language - it is comprised
@kristopaivinen of everything from modes to chords to texture to pulsation to rhythm to melody. Like all languages, the vocabulary of tonality serves the purpose of communication. Minor communicates one thing, major another. Harmonic progression and rhythm is an enormously potent means of communication - one semitone change can completely alter the meaning of a chord and its forward and backward implications. What you are talking about is not a vocabulary, since it communicates
@kristopaivinen nothing but itself. The function of tonal vocabulary is to make the listener feel something, enter a mood. Sometimes the mood is hard to describe in words, for instance, how do you describe the first movement of Mozart 40? But in a discussion such as this, it would be easy to pick some words - melancholy, somewhat anxious. Then there is the issue of beauty - should art always be perceived through a lens of beauty. For me, the answer is almost always yes, unless what is being
@kristopaivinen expressed is something malevolent or otherwise negative. The point is that tonal composers use the tonal vocabulary established over many centuries to cause the listener to feel something. That is the function of music. It can be achieved via atonality, but success is difficult - the vocabulary is trimmed down to basic consonance-dissonance relationships. It takes a keen ear to succeed, but it can achieve what minor cannot for negative emotions.
@kristopaivinen If I had to bet money on why you will not agree to describe what it is you will like about Babbitt once you are familiar enough with it, I'd bet that it's because you don't feel a thing - regardless of your denial, your main interest is "figuring it out". Analysis in your case is its own end, whereas for most of us, analysis serves to objectify what we already feel.
@kristopaivinen There's nothing arbitrary about "picking words" to try to describe what music makes you feel - unless, of course, it makes you feel nothing, in which case you'll just be taking blind stabs, guessing. Regarding "massiveness of energy" and "acceleration" (??), I am left speechless, which is not easy to accomplish. I think maybe we should end this conversation and you should continue to enjoy Babbitt. If you do give an honest try to find the proof and cannot, ask and I will show you
@kristopaivinen I never suggested that you "lack feelings". I stated that I don't think you have a clue what music is about. Regarding the value of music, it has always been determined solely by one thing: history. History has already passed judgment on Babbitt and his ilk. For a few decades they made life difficult for those who were honestly trying to find a way, but now, thankfully, they are all but forgotten. Whether music, which I love so dearly, can recover remains to be seen.
@kristopaivinen Yes, wrt music, my belief is feeling is not part of the equation for you. That doesn't mean you lack feelings. I find your musical equation odd, since feeling is the reason for music's existence - it's the way it makes people FEEL that is why it has survived for centuries. Regarding history, of course it is irrelevant to personal choice - anyone can listen to anything they want, regardless of its quality.
@kristopaivinen "Such a conclusion" is drawn from repeatedly attempting to get you to say precisely what it is about this music that appeals to you. Answer: "yay-fun". Figuring out a puzzle. That's the truth and that's the end of the story. The rest is baloney. Frankly, I don't really comprehend the remainder of your above post.
@jaspernatchez I'm still not clear whether your "yay-fun" is derived aurally. If you claim that to be the case, I'd ask for proof. You could prove it with the viola piece here - I'll presume you don't have the score. Listen to it 50 more times and then let me hear about all the "yay-fun" you found, with details, of course.
@kristopaivinen What a confused jumble you've written. I don't think you have any clue why you listen to music. You know what? Go get yourself babbitted to tears while you're having fun-yay. I think I'm done here.
@kristopaivinen Babbitt not only had no clue what music is about, he had no clue what art is about. That is a provable statement. The proof is here: hxxp://mypage.iu.edu/~tcbest/babbitt%20article.pdf . See if you can find it.
@kristopaivinen The title proves nothing, and your assumption about its origin is based solely on the squawking of an embarrassed Babbitt who brought it up every time the article was mentioned so that he could try to avoid discussing the content of the article, where the true abomination lies. Regarding the proof, sorry, you'll have to find it yourself. I'll just ask you to trust me that it's there. It's a short article - read it and you'll find the proof.
@kristopaivinen Forgive me, the above is essentially incomprehensible to me. What is the "antecedent" to an abomination?? Perhaps it's your English - it's ok, I'm lousy with other languages, too. I think I've managed to glean from the above that you were not successful in finding the proof. That is surprising, since it could easily be argued that the basic premise of the article proves that Babbitt had no clue what art is, since he advocates
@kristopaivinen for the composer "total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition." By so advocating, he has admitted ignorance of the function of art, which is to uplift, inspire, transport, perhaps to divert, to give pleasure, to give relief, and to create something beautiful for someone to lose himself in.
@kristopaivinen Your quote only supports my proof,since neither mathematics, nor philosophy, nor physics is an art. It affirms B's confusion. He tried to weasel in philosophy, but it's not an art. Besides, philosophers write for general consumption every bit as much historians do, and their works are not rarefied like those of mathematics and physics that have advanced beyond the capacity of the average, well-educated person. Sorry, you haven't refuted my proof whatsoever. Instead of trying to
@kristopaivinen There is no "analogy" of arts and sciences. What are you talking about? Your classification of philosophy as "history of philosophy" and then that as "rarefied" is just flailing babble presented in a vain attempt to refute what is a simple, glaring proof. PHILOSOPHERS DID NOT AS A RULE IN 1958 OR EVER HAVE PRIVATE CONFERENCES TO ADVANCE PHILOSOPHY.. You're just groping. Your recording shtick in now way ameliorates the elitist attitude of B. BTW, I did a report on exstlism. in HS.
@kristopaivinen It seems you're not aware that Sartre and Camus were very popular authors and playwrights, in fact a number of their plays were BEST SELLERS!!! Does that sound "rarefied" to you? Look in the mirror, man - you'll make a fool of yourself to defend what - a babbitt? A catastrophe of a person who rode a wave of propaganda and artistic fascism to academic fame? My guess is he was a "composer" because he wasn't a talented enough mathematician to satisfy his own ambition.
@kristopaivinen This is in direct violation of the very function of art, which I have described in detail above. He goes on to say that the solution to this problem is to forget the public, to "withdraw totally", where concerts now resemble gatherings of advanced mathematicians or physicists. The mention of "electronic media" seems to be confusing you, because YOU DON'T KEEP IN MIND THE "PROBLEM" THAT B IS TRYING TO SOLVE. That is a PROBLEM FOR YOU.
@kristopaivinen my two replies appear reversed for some reason. Please note post times. IN summary, B's problem and solution violate the function of art. His inability to distinguish the difference between music, an art, and philosophy, mathematics, or physics show that, in addition to having no clue about the purpose that art serves, he has no clue what is or is not an art. Why bring science into the discussion at all? Of course, because he knew his point was weak. Your inability to see that is
@jaspernatchez problematic. The issue of electronic media became confusing for you because you lost sight of the "problem" that B was trying to solve. Had you kept in mind the overall picture, it would have been clear. Think about it. Here's the bottom line: B knew people hated his "music" and resented it. Basically, the article is saying "fock it, I don't need them any more than they need me." Sour grapes, anyone?
@kristopaivinen "What has your attention" is irrelevant. THE POINT IS that both Sartre and Camus were very concerned with the public, and had great success with it. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BABBITT CLAIMS HAPPENS IN PHILOSOPHY. I find your comment about private performance above quite bizarre. You seem totally unable to see the overall picture. Here you have an article that states very clearly that, in B's view, music has grown too "advanced" for the normal, well-educated concert goer.
@kristopaivinen defend B, perhaps you should contemplate a world where concerts are behind locked doors, attended only by babbitts who fancy themselves & the things they've created beyond the reach of average concert-goers, whose "music to eat by", like, presumably, Britten or Prokofiev,should satisfy their thirst for entertainment. By the way, don't interpret, READ. "Private performance" (for specialists only) is clear enough. How you can defend this pretentious pseudointellectual is beyond me.
@kristopaivinen What Babbitt advocates makes the basic function of art impossible. But that is not proof. He attempts to justify his position: "The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics." None of the 3 examples are arts. He thus proves he is incapable of distinguishing art from science, and therefore cannot know what art is about. Quod erat demonstrandum.
@kristopaivinen The word "sounds" puzzles you???? What is puzzling about it? It seems rather odd that we are involved in a discussion about MUSIC and "sounds" puzzles you. It's not complicated. Pitch repetitions do NOT occur regularly. Each time a new row begins, it may repeat a note or notes. The beginning of a row's inclusion in the piece is completely arbitrary, so pitch repetitions can occur at any time or not at all. There is nothing in 12-tone theory that would cause repetition regularity.
This is from A Viola Treasury made in 1975 by the Zaslav Duo (Myself, Bernard and Naomi Zaslav) on Music & Arts CD-1151. Milton was a dear friend and we sincerely regret his passing.
I have also recorded 2 of his string quartets with the Composers and on commissioned by the Fine Arts Quartet.
He was a warm, witty human being, an important composer, and we will miss him.
What a coincidence, I've been listening to this and the Composition for Four Instruments from the same recording over the past few days. This is probably the only Babbitt piece I'd call Webernian. I'll admit I prefer his later sensory-overload pieces, but this is really nice.
I'm surprised that I'm starting to like Babbitt's music more and more.
linguistmuz 6 months ago
Pitches sound completely random to me. Why then should I believe there was some intelligence behind them?
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen Why do you assume pitch frequency is equal for all pitches? You didn't count them, did you?
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen Well, I was just curious why you brought it up to start with. You presented it in reply to my observation that the pitches SOUND random. The key word is "sound", not "random". The pitches no doubt have some ordering method, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an AUDIBLE logic. "Similarities" and "developments" are not the issue, either. Simple issue is, do the pitches form audible, meaningful groups, e.g. chords that have function. If not, they're random.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen I will apologize and tell you I understand little of what you wrote. I will address "the audibility of the logic seems to depend on familiarity with each piece." Problem here: two things can lead to predictability and therefore involvement in a piece of music - familiarity and logic. Since they both lead to predictability, they can become confused. Listening to something without audible logic over and over until it becomes familiar will result in predictability, but not in logic.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen Please forgive me, I again cannot understand what you're saying. Perhaps you mistyped. When you say "the logic, if it's there..." - don't you think you should know whether or not it's there? I know it's not and have stated so plainly. Then you say "no two musical figures are exactly alike". How do you know that to be the case? Doesn't the possibility exist otherwise? You speak of "variations" - I am not aware of variations, but I didn't listen all the way.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen You are missing my point. I contend the pitch choices make no aural sense. Everything you say above seems irrelevant to that simple statement. A monkey's choices of pitches could not sound more devoid of reason. I wonder if I did a quick replacement of 50% of the pitches whether you could hear the difference (I'd skillfully move them only a semitone up or down in most cases.)
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen No need for audible note repetitions nor a "scattering across registers" (curious), since we're talking semitones here. You claim with my alterations you'd "be less able to make any sense of the piece". Please be specific - what "sense" do you mean, and how would that sense be destroyed or damaged by my alterations?
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
skarp2010 8 months ago
@skarp2010 "You would still increase note repetitions within some 12-note successions in the piece," 1. not necessarily 2 Who cares - note repetitions are inaudible so long as they're not within 2 or three notes, unless, of course, you're listening for them, which is a silly way to listen to music. When you "discover" these "relations", do you do so aurally or in some other way? If the latter, those relations are meaningless.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen When you say you "react to" repetitions, how do you do so? If I play you a "row" of 11 notes, will you know without counting, somehow mysteriously "sense" it? If I repeat notes 2 at note 11? You are aware, of course, that pitch repetitions occur *all the time* in 12 tone music - they're between 2 or more rows. So how could you tell, when you hear a repetition, whether it is "legal"? BTW "indicates" is not the same as "sounds".
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen Sorry, your "infer" is evasive. I asked you a simple question. Please answer it clearly and honestly. When you say you involuntarily count pitches, do you think that is the way 12-tone music is meant to be heard, sort of like solving a puzzle? Do you have perfect pitch?
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen I'm just not getting this repetition stuff. You can have as many repetitions as you want in 12-tone music so long as they are members of different rows. If played on a piano or any other polyphonic instrument, it is not possible to aurally distinguish if they are "correct" or "illegal". Truthfully, this discussion seems to be going nowhere. Hearing note repetitions in any case is nonsense - in a complex texture, a repetition from 4 seconds ago is not detectable for most.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen I think we're really not communicating. How you can say these matters have no significance in discovering a so-called wealth of relations is impossible to understand. "These matters" are exactly one thing - can you hear this "wealth" or not? As such, "these matters" have *everything* to do with whether a piece has a "wealth of relations" that is *audible* or is random-*sounding* garbage. Any mode of "discovery" not employing hearing is worthless wrt music, which is a SONIC art.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen This is getting surreal. Forget "indicates" - it is a worthless verb with the sort of imprecise, "soft" meaning you seem to favor (like "infer" and "imply"). "Aurally indicates" is equally worthless. "Sounds" means something that has the ability to be heard without special, Herculean effort. Is that clear enough? Above I asked you if one can HEAR this "wealth" or not and you didn't answer. Is the word "hear" confusing for you as well? Let's get one thing straight. (continued)
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez @kristopaivinen (cont'd) Tonal music has an extremely complex set of pre-defined structures (chords & scales) that inter-relate in myriad ways, forming relationships over a wide array of time spans: note to note, phrase to phrase, section to section. These structures are greater than the sum of their notes. While they can be analyzed, most often they are heard intuitively by non-musicians. If they weren't, music would be dead because it would have no appeal for the vast majority.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Hmm, so, you've heard it 5 times & still have no opinion of its worth. How many times would you need to hear it in order to make a judgment as to whether it's a good piece or not? 10? 25? 50? Can you give me an example of what you might hear after 10 times that you haven't heard after 5? Just so I understand, you say you'd have to be a genius to "respond" to a piece of Babbitt in less than, say, 10 listenings. So you must think it's really profound. What do you mean by "respond"?
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Evasive reply again. You stated that after 5 listenings, you have "no convictions of its worth". I suspect what is happening is that after an absurd number of repetitions, you begin to be able to predict events, and confuse that with genuine musical expectation. You could do the same with what a monkey wrote. I haven't heard much of Babbitt, but everything I have heard has been absolutely, consistently worthless. He was a charlatan. If I may be blunt, I suspect you're one, too.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen "Random" means devoid of pattern. "Sounds" means "gives an aural impression of being". Memory plays no part in something sounding random any more than if I hear a mental patient speaking gibberish. Simple fact is that the pitches in much 12-tone music do not arrange into comprehensible patterns analogous to chords, scales, sequence, etc., with FUNCTION. There is no analogue in 12 tone music to the incredibly rich and complex tonal VOCABULARY.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen The coherence and variation exist in 12 tone music, but NOT AURALLY. I have great ears, and I cannot hear an inversion of a 12 note sequence. Compound that with the row being used VERTICALLY as well, and a child could see that it's not audible. I repeat: elements such as variation or coherence that are not audible are WORTHLESS in a sonic art.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Repetition is neither a prerequisite nor a determinant of coherence. While it is true that coherence is a necessary aspect of art, it is not the most important one. There is usually no coherence between the movements of a symphony nor between the first and second themes of a sonata movement. In fact, contrast is a more fundamental aspect of art than coherence. I realize that English probably is not your primary language, but I don't understand your last sentence.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez Let's make this simple, OK? I have a suggestion. You listen to the Babbitt 20 or 30 more times or whatever it takes to allow you to form an opinion. If you decide it is a good piece after that, tell me precisely why. Use the timings on the youtube video. Tell me "Here I love this harmony", "Here it is very beautiful for x and y reason", "here it is exciting for q and z reason", "here it is very unexpected", etc. I will go to those places and see if I can get it. Fair enough?
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen So I take it you are unwilling to comply with my suggestion, thus unwilling to state precisely why anyone would want to listen to this "music". I'm not surprised.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Here's a newsflash for you. Pay close attention: People don't listen to music for "logic". Re tone rows, I couldn't care less about them - I intuitively knew when I first heard of them at 19 that the idea of their use for musical composition is absurd. The sad thing is that it took so long for that use to die out. Arnold was a good salesman. Re Babbitt, anyone who cannot perceive that serializing dynamics, for example, is even more absurd, simply has no clue what music is about.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen You say "for some reason" although I clearly stated the reason in this discussion. I'll repeat it here. Any means of organizing pitches that is not audible is irrelevant to a sonic art. You say you're concerned with hearing "elements". What are those elements, specifically? What benefit do they give you once you finally hear them? I get the impression that for you, listening to music is a contest - see if you can, via massively repeated listenings, hear patterns. I find that sad
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen As I surmised, that's what music is to you - a puzzle to decipher. Poor guy - you don't have a clue about what you're missing. Anyway, I hope you achieve your end after 20 or so more listenings of this Babbitt, so you can have your "fun - yay" - and, I suppose, a sense of accomplishment or whatever, kinda like what I get from the morning crossword. Good luck!
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez Even if that is what music is to me, it is not all that music is to me. In fact, it is less a puzzle to me than it is a cause of whims, moods, feelings and sentiments, which I cannot live without any more than the average man can live without his pop music. However, I have no clue how specifying/naming these whims/moods/feelings is supposed to help us objectively discuss the value of ANY music - whether modern or traditional - or to measure its value other than just subjectively.
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Let's review. I asked you to describe for me the "elements" that make music worthwhile, you described to me some "vocabulary" produced by the influence of rows, which is equal to the "sum of relations" of the row/array. You are misusing the word "vocabulary", which is defined as "the body of words used in a particular language". Thus you suggest with your statement that each row has its own language, which is absurd. There is a vocabulary of the tonal language - it is comprised
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
skarp2010 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen of everything from modes to chords to texture to pulsation to rhythm to melody. Like all languages, the vocabulary of tonality serves the purpose of communication. Minor communicates one thing, major another. Harmonic progression and rhythm is an enormously potent means of communication - one semitone change can completely alter the meaning of a chord and its forward and backward implications. What you are talking about is not a vocabulary, since it communicates
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen nothing but itself. The function of tonal vocabulary is to make the listener feel something, enter a mood. Sometimes the mood is hard to describe in words, for instance, how do you describe the first movement of Mozart 40? But in a discussion such as this, it would be easy to pick some words - melancholy, somewhat anxious. Then there is the issue of beauty - should art always be perceived through a lens of beauty. For me, the answer is almost always yes, unless what is being
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen expressed is something malevolent or otherwise negative. The point is that tonal composers use the tonal vocabulary established over many centuries to cause the listener to feel something. That is the function of music. It can be achieved via atonality, but success is difficult - the vocabulary is trimmed down to basic consonance-dissonance relationships. It takes a keen ear to succeed, but it can achieve what minor cannot for negative emotions.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen If I had to bet money on why you will not agree to describe what it is you will like about Babbitt once you are familiar enough with it, I'd bet that it's because you don't feel a thing - regardless of your denial, your main interest is "figuring it out". Analysis in your case is its own end, whereas for most of us, analysis serves to objectify what we already feel.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen There's nothing arbitrary about "picking words" to try to describe what music makes you feel - unless, of course, it makes you feel nothing, in which case you'll just be taking blind stabs, guessing. Regarding "massiveness of energy" and "acceleration" (??), I am left speechless, which is not easy to accomplish. I think maybe we should end this conversation and you should continue to enjoy Babbitt. If you do give an honest try to find the proof and cannot, ask and I will show you
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen I never suggested that you "lack feelings". I stated that I don't think you have a clue what music is about. Regarding the value of music, it has always been determined solely by one thing: history. History has already passed judgment on Babbitt and his ilk. For a few decades they made life difficult for those who were honestly trying to find a way, but now, thankfully, they are all but forgotten. Whether music, which I love so dearly, can recover remains to be seen.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Yes, wrt music, my belief is feeling is not part of the equation for you. That doesn't mean you lack feelings. I find your musical equation odd, since feeling is the reason for music's existence - it's the way it makes people FEEL that is why it has survived for centuries. Regarding history, of course it is irrelevant to personal choice - anyone can listen to anything they want, regardless of its quality.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen As I said a few days ago, go enjoy your babbitt.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen "Such a conclusion" is drawn from repeatedly attempting to get you to say precisely what it is about this music that appeals to you. Answer: "yay-fun". Figuring out a puzzle. That's the truth and that's the end of the story. The rest is baloney. Frankly, I don't really comprehend the remainder of your above post.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez I'm still not clear whether your "yay-fun" is derived aurally. If you claim that to be the case, I'd ask for proof. You could prove it with the viola piece here - I'll presume you don't have the score. Listen to it 50 more times and then let me hear about all the "yay-fun" you found, with details, of course.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen What a confused jumble you've written. I don't think you have any clue why you listen to music. You know what? Go get yourself babbitted to tears while you're having fun-yay. I think I'm done here.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Babbitt not only had no clue what music is about, he had no clue what art is about. That is a provable statement. The proof is here: hxxp://mypage.iu.edu/~tcbest/babbitt%20article.pdf . See if you can find it.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen The title proves nothing, and your assumption about its origin is based solely on the squawking of an embarrassed Babbitt who brought it up every time the article was mentioned so that he could try to avoid discussing the content of the article, where the true abomination lies. Regarding the proof, sorry, you'll have to find it yourself. I'll just ask you to trust me that it's there. It's a short article - read it and you'll find the proof.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Forgive me, the above is essentially incomprehensible to me. What is the "antecedent" to an abomination?? Perhaps it's your English - it's ok, I'm lousy with other languages, too. I think I've managed to glean from the above that you were not successful in finding the proof. That is surprising, since it could easily be argued that the basic premise of the article proves that Babbitt had no clue what art is, since he advocates
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen for the composer "total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition." By so advocating, he has admitted ignorance of the function of art, which is to uplift, inspire, transport, perhaps to divert, to give pleasure, to give relief, and to create something beautiful for someone to lose himself in.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen Your quote only supports my proof,since neither mathematics, nor philosophy, nor physics is an art. It affirms B's confusion. He tried to weasel in philosophy, but it's not an art. Besides, philosophers write for general consumption every bit as much historians do, and their works are not rarefied like those of mathematics and physics that have advanced beyond the capacity of the average, well-educated person. Sorry, you haven't refuted my proof whatsoever. Instead of trying to
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen There is no "analogy" of arts and sciences. What are you talking about? Your classification of philosophy as "history of philosophy" and then that as "rarefied" is just flailing babble presented in a vain attempt to refute what is a simple, glaring proof. PHILOSOPHERS DID NOT AS A RULE IN 1958 OR EVER HAVE PRIVATE CONFERENCES TO ADVANCE PHILOSOPHY.. You're just groping. Your recording shtick in now way ameliorates the elitist attitude of B. BTW, I did a report on exstlism. in HS.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
skarp2010 7 months ago
Comment removed
skarp2010 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen It seems you're not aware that Sartre and Camus were very popular authors and playwrights, in fact a number of their plays were BEST SELLERS!!! Does that sound "rarefied" to you? Look in the mirror, man - you'll make a fool of yourself to defend what - a babbitt? A catastrophe of a person who rode a wave of propaganda and artistic fascism to academic fame? My guess is he was a "composer" because he wasn't a talented enough mathematician to satisfy his own ambition.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen This is in direct violation of the very function of art, which I have described in detail above. He goes on to say that the solution to this problem is to forget the public, to "withdraw totally", where concerts now resemble gatherings of advanced mathematicians or physicists. The mention of "electronic media" seems to be confusing you, because YOU DON'T KEEP IN MIND THE "PROBLEM" THAT B IS TRYING TO SOLVE. That is a PROBLEM FOR YOU.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen my two replies appear reversed for some reason. Please note post times. IN summary, B's problem and solution violate the function of art. His inability to distinguish the difference between music, an art, and philosophy, mathematics, or physics show that, in addition to having no clue about the purpose that art serves, he has no clue what is or is not an art. Why bring science into the discussion at all? Of course, because he knew his point was weak. Your inability to see that is
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez problematic. The issue of electronic media became confusing for you because you lost sight of the "problem" that B was trying to solve. Had you kept in mind the overall picture, it would have been clear. Think about it. Here's the bottom line: B knew people hated his "music" and resented it. Basically, the article is saying "fock it, I don't need them any more than they need me." Sour grapes, anyone?
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen "What has your attention" is irrelevant. THE POINT IS that both Sartre and Camus were very concerned with the public, and had great success with it. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BABBITT CLAIMS HAPPENS IN PHILOSOPHY. I find your comment about private performance above quite bizarre. You seem totally unable to see the overall picture. Here you have an article that states very clearly that, in B's view, music has grown too "advanced" for the normal, well-educated concert goer.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen defend B, perhaps you should contemplate a world where concerts are behind locked doors, attended only by babbitts who fancy themselves & the things they've created beyond the reach of average concert-goers, whose "music to eat by", like, presumably, Britten or Prokofiev,should satisfy their thirst for entertainment. By the way, don't interpret, READ. "Private performance" (for specialists only) is clear enough. How you can defend this pretentious pseudointellectual is beyond me.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@kristopaivinen What Babbitt advocates makes the basic function of art impossible. But that is not proof. He attempts to justify his position: "The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics." None of the 3 examples are arts. He thus proves he is incapable of distinguishing art from science, and therefore cannot know what art is about. Quod erat demonstrandum.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen Why in heaven's name would you think pitch repetitions occur regularly in 12-tone music?
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
@kristopaivinen The word "sounds" puzzles you???? What is puzzling about it? It seems rather odd that we are involved in a discussion about MUSIC and "sounds" puzzles you. It's not complicated. Pitch repetitions do NOT occur regularly. Each time a new row begins, it may repeat a note or notes. The beginning of a row's inclusion in the piece is completely arbitrary, so pitch repetitions can occur at any time or not at all. There is nothing in 12-tone theory that would cause repetition regularity.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
Comment removed
kristopaivinen 7 months ago
RIP
PCM63PK 1 year ago
This is from A Viola Treasury made in 1975 by the Zaslav Duo (Myself, Bernard and Naomi Zaslav) on Music & Arts CD-1151. Milton was a dear friend and we sincerely regret his passing.
I have also recorded 2 of his string quartets with the Composers and on commissioned by the Fine Arts Quartet.
He was a warm, witty human being, an important composer, and we will miss him.
Bernie and Nomi Zaslav
bbratchist 1 year ago
RIP Milton Babbitt.
starkweather444 1 year ago
I love this piece. Who's playing?
kentie1964 2 years ago
cool
EMG1992 2 years ago
What a coincidence, I've been listening to this and the Composition for Four Instruments from the same recording over the past few days. This is probably the only Babbitt piece I'd call Webernian. I'll admit I prefer his later sensory-overload pieces, but this is really nice.
DarthJeeling 2 years ago
ahhh beautiful! thank you NewMusicXX please keep them coming!
s8thMPkar98 2 years ago
Who are the performers?
aghth5 2 years ago
@aghth5 - The Zaslav Duo (Bernard Zaslav). Sorry, that's all I have.
NewMusicXX 2 years ago
That's fine. Thank you for posting! Babbitt wrote some interesting music! :-)
aghth5 2 years ago